UPC_CFI_376/2023

DEVICE FOR TREATING NIGHT TIME BREATHING PROBLEMS

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageBrussels LDInfringementCase Closed

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

An anonymised claimant brought an infringement action before the Brussels Local Division against OrthoApnea and Vivisol B BV concerning a patent on a device for treating night-time breathing problems (EP2331036). The court dismissed the action in full, finding neither literal infringement — because the accused products did not meet all claim features when interpreted in context — nor infringement by equivalence, since no functional equivalence was demonstrated. The earlier evidence preservation order was lifted and costs were awarded to the defendants.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

No literal infringement: the accused OrthoApnea products do not meet all claim features when claims are interpreted in light of the claim as a whole
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation; Arts. 25-26 UPCA
Hinweis: The court followed a two-step approach: first assessing literal infringement by interpreting the claims in context, finding one or more features absent.
No infringement by equivalence because there is no functional equivalence regardless of which equivalence test is applied
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC Protocol; UPC doctrine of equivalents
Hinweis: The court held that the absence of functional equivalence is a threshold bar to any equivalence finding, making the choice of test irrelevant.
Temporal condition for main proceedings following evidence preservation under R. 198(1) RoP is satisfied if the Statement of Claim is uploaded to CMS within the prescribed period, even if translation and service come later
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 198(1) RoP; R. 271(8) RoP
Hinweis: This procedural holding favoured neither party substantively but confirmed the claimant had validly brought main proceedings in time.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Literal infringement of the patent on the medical device (sleep apnea treatment) by OrthoApnea and Vivisol products
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; Art. 25 UPCA
Begründung: Claim interpretation in light of the claim as a whole showed the accused products did not meet all required features of the claim.
Infringement by equivalence of the same patent claims
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC Protocol; doctrine of equivalents
Begründung: No functional equivalence was established, which the court treated as a prerequisite for any equivalence doctrine analysis.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

Two-step infringement analysis under Art. 69 EPC: literal infringement first, then equivalence if no literal infringement Absence of functional equivalence bars any finding of infringement by equivalence regardless of which equivalence test is applied For evidence preservation followed by main proceedings, upload of Statement of Claim to CMS within R.198(1) period satisfies the temporal condition even if translation/service is completed later (R.271(8) RoP)Upon dismissal of infringement action, earlier evidence preservation order must be lifted and seized goods returned (R.198(2) RoP)Unsuccessful claimant bears defendant costs; damages from the seizure to be assessed in follow-on proceedings (R.125 RoP)

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The Brussels Local Division interpreted the claims of the sleep-apnea device patent (EP2331036) in context of the claim as a whole, applying Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol. The court found that one or more features required by the claims were not present in the accused products on literal reading. On equivalence, the court focused on whether the variant performed the same function; finding no functional equivalence, it did not reach other steps of equivalence analysis.